New computer simulations inform astronomers what to look for if they want to …

What happens when two black holes smash into each another? They form an even larger black hole while driving jets of relativistic matter into the far reaches of the cosmos. New complex computer simulations have attempted to give a glimpse into the explosion of electromagnetic and gravitational waves that result. The answers may tell us whether or not we could ever detect such a merger.

A paper describing the simulations appears in the current issue of Science. It takes a look at what happens as two supermassive black holes dance around each another, accompanied by a conducting plasma and magnetic field. The emission of gravitational waves would carry both angular momentum and energy away, causing them to eventually collide and merge. The numerical simulations indicated that the particle jets that sometimes accompany black holes would align, thanks to an anchoring and alignment of the magnetic field that occurs as they merge.

An interesting side note mentioned by the authors is that stray charged particles will get caught up in the magnetic field and accelerate to enormous velocities. This acceleration will result in the particle radiating off enough energy to form electron-positron pairs from the vacuum which will be accelerated in turn. This process would repeat, producing a cascade of particles that populate the immediate region with a charged, conducting plasma.

All of the work is interesting to any theorist, but the results show what astronomers might look for as indications that an event of this sort has taken place. The electromagnetic energy of the collision can be transferred to kinetic energy through the plasma, which will bleed it off through synchrotron radiation. Those emissions could be detected with future X-ray telescopes out to a significant distance from the source (a redshift of z = 1).

Further in the future, joint X-ray-gravitational wave detectors will allow more refined observations of supermassive black hole mergers. The paper gives a scaling for gravitational wave power that should be detectable at even greater distances, back to redshifts of 5 to 10.

24 Reader Comments

Could you expand/clarify the last two paragraphs a bit. Because gravitational radiation luminosity is proportional to how close the BH's are to merger is this the detection range for the merge signal, or for the inspiral at a distance between the BHs of X?

I'd like to see how the event horizon of each black hole is deformed by the other, or what sort of weird stuff could accumulate at the Lagrange points of this two-body system.

Indeed. I may even be possible to escape a black hole after falling into the event horizon when it is later deformed by another black hole. Of course that'd require something to go beyond an event horizon and not merge with the singularity.

>An interesting side note mentioned by the authors is that stray charged particles will get caught up in the magnetic field and accelerate to enormous velocities. This acceleration will result in the particle radiating off enough energy to form electron-positron pairs from the vacuum which will be accelerated in turn. This process would repeat, producing a cascade of particles that populate the immediate region with a charged, conducting plasma.

>An interesting side note mentioned by the authors is that stray charged particles will get caught up in the magnetic field and accelerate to enormous velocities. This acceleration will result in the particle radiating off enough energy to form electron-positron pairs from the vacuum which will be accelerated in turn. This process would repeat, producing a cascade of particles that populate the immediate region with a charged, conducting plasma.

Is this matter form energy?

Yep. Perfectly valid!

E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^(.5)

means that a perfectly legitimate way to shed energy is particle generation.

Something like 99.98% of the described universe is Plasma. Plasma is a charged particle. The only known way to accelerate a charged particle is to place it in a magnetic field. That is it. There is no other known way.

“An interesting side note mentioned by the authors is that stray charged particles will get caught up in the magnetic field and accelerate to enormous velocities. This acceleration will result in the particle radiating off enough energy to form electron-positron pairs from the vacuum which will be accelerated in turn. This process would repeat, producing a cascade of particles that populate the immediate region with a charged, conducting plasma. “

1. There are no (stray) charged particles. The universe is all charged particles.2. There is no vacuum in the known universe. What used to be called a vacuum is all plasma and is filled with Zero Point Energy and it is highly conductive. 3. A cascading particle effect does not populate the region with a charged conducting plasma. The universe is a charged conductive Plasma in which the particle effect occurs in an electomagnetic field.

Despite the universe being all Plasma, mass is almost non-existent in the measured universe by volume and almost all the measured mass by volume is completely void and empty from the electron to the nucleus. Gravity is the effect that mass has on spacetime and is one of the weakest forces in the universe. Gravity is weak because there is very little mass anywhere and if the nucleus is made up of particles full of emptiness, than there is probably even less mass than we believe at this time. Gravity- mass effects quickly decrease over distance. If gravity is the cause of everything, then fanciful and inventive speculation must be done to invent models which really do not work.Black holes used to eat everything, now they eat nothing. Black holes are supposed to be dark and keep all spectra from escaping and now they are the brightest things in the sky.The story changes everyday because there are no rules of science which control unsupported speculation labeled as truth. Modern simulated science by computer simulation is not science at all. Rather than using bones or animal livers, or reading tea leaves, people are using computer programs to justify what they really do not understand. It is an attempt to explain what we do not understand but still believe could be possible and nothing more. Once believed it becomes like a religion and people will fight to the death over their beliefs.

Other options exist!

Anthony L. Peratt, also using computer simulations, showed that the spiral shape of a galaxy will form naturally in the plasma by electromagnetic means without gravity being needed.Wake up and smell the coffee boys and girls. Despite the crowds with their constant unending cries of gravity, gravity, black holes and gravity, we live in a Plasma-Electomagnetic universe and not in a universe dominated by the Gravity-Mass model. We understand very little about everything and are learning quickly how much less we know than we think we did yesterday.

Something like 99.98% of the described universe is Plasma. Plasma is a charged particle. The only known way to accelerate a charged particle is to place it in a magnetic field. That is it. There is no other known way.

Have you tried placing your charged particles in electrical or gravitational fields yet?

Quote:

2. There is no vacuum in the known universe. What used to be called a vacuum is all plasma and is filled with Zero Point Energy and it is highly conductive.

This does not explain very well why we tend to use copper conductors to distribute electricity rather than a vacuum.

Quote:

Gravity- mass effects quickly decrease over distance.

Yes, that 1/r² thing is annoying. How are your electric forces coping with it? For that matter, how do charged volumes cope with neutralizing themselves via attraction of opposite charges? Remember, electric forces are strong.

Quote:

Black holes used to eat everything, now they eat nothing.

Er... not sure where you're getting that from.

Quote:

Black holes are supposed to be dark and keep all spectra from escaping and now they are the brightest things in the sky.

Stuff falling into them can be among the brightest things observable. Stuff falling into black holes != black holes.

Quote:

The story changes everyday because there are no rules of science which control unsupported speculation labeled as truth. Modern simulated science by computer simulation is not science at all. Rather than using bones or animal livers, or reading tea leaves, people are using computer programs to justify what they really do not understand. It is an attempt to explain what we do not understand but still believe could be possible and nothing more. Once believed it becomes like a religion and people will fight to the death over their beliefs.

Other options exist!

Anthony L. Peratt, also using computer simulations, showed that the spiral shape of a galaxy will form naturally in the plasma by electromagnetic means without gravity being needed.

So wait, computer modelling is a means of justifying what one does not understand, except when it supports your theory, in which case it's all fine and dandy, and you think that those who consider the universe dominated by gravity at large scales are the ones with religion about it? (Which isn't to say anything about Peratt's work, I don't really know about it).

Quote:

It is time to throw the invention of the black hole into the dustbin.

Why do you find black holes inconvenient? Pray tell, what is wrong with general relativity, which treats charged black holes very nicely thankyou (see Kerr-Newman metric)?

Sinclair Smith calculated the Coma Cluster and found that the mass of the Coma cluster far exceeded the mass of the galaxies comprising it, assuming that the redshifts were velocities in equilibrium. Fred Zwicky, looking at the Coma Cluster at a later time, emphasized this problem and the concept of dark or missing mass was born. If redshift=velocity, more mass, or gravity was needed to make the equation work. Now almost all the Universe is this dark and missing matter, which began its life as an attempt to balance the numbers in an equation which was not balancing. Mass is almost non-existent, and to say that the universe is made out of nothing is about right. Not enough mass = not enough gravity. The measured universe tells us that, the data is clear.The black hole is a philosophical construct now known to be based on incorrect mathematics. I am sorry about that. I am not responsible for it! Using that model to answer the gravity problem is a dead end and destined to fail. I do not know what the future looks like in cosmology and neither does any one else. Why keep looking for a black hole, when what seems to be at the center of some galaxies might be better described as a white hole, if such a thing exists or is possible. The universe does what it wants without worrying about whether humans understand it or not. This, “I understand everything”, attitude is stupid. It is funny that as the telescopes get better, they see farther, and the farther we see, the bigger the universe gets, and the bigger it gets the older it is. Yet we only can see as far as we can see. A few years ago the universe was 4 billion years old, and now we are told it is 14 billion years old. The age of the universe has not changed! Only our perceptions of the universe and its age have changed. We need to ask different questions. We need to change our perceptions.http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/If dark matter and dark energy are now 95% of the universe and rising as a percentage, this gravity invention, of which we know nothing, begins to rival plasma as an explanation for everything. Is dark stuff = universal Plasma. I think not. Elecromagnetism and Plasma cannot be removed if we are to understand the universe. All spectra is electromagnetic. We may not understand what the Plasma is doing and how it operates but that is ok. Electrical engineers can work on the data, but no amount of data can support an invention and what seems to be a fantasy. This dark foolishness is just gravity being made the answer to everything and it probably is not.

That is the title. It is all about black holes. If black holes do not exist than it is nothing but speculation and fantasy with an artists rendition. Here is a link which cannot have more significance than in this context. I link it without discussion.http://www.aias.us/documents/Educationa ... apping.pdfThis is a forum, and I thank ars technica for it. You need to have a discussion with someone other than me if you want to understand. I posted a link without discussion because discussion is what they do at the links I posted. I may not be the fastest runner in the world, but I can post a link listing the fastest runners in the world without any hidden issues, lies, or the ability to run fast myself.

You did ask the question.

"Why do you find black holes inconvenient? Pray tell, what is wrong with general relativity, which treats charged black holes very nicely thankyou (see Kerr-Newman metric)? nummycakes".Read and make up your own mind. I do not care what you choose as long as you are honest in your investigation and check out the sources to see if they are real. The rest is up to you.

That is the title. It is all about black holes. If black holes do not exist than it is nothing but speculation and fantasy with an artists rendition. Here is a link which cannot have more significance than in this context. I link it without discussion.http://www.aias.us/documents/Educationa ... apping.pdfThis is a forum, and I thank ars technica for it. You need to have a discussion with someone other than me if you want to understand. I posted a link without discussion because discussion is what they do at the links I posted. I may not be the fastest runner in the world, but I can post a link listing the fastest runners in the world without any hidden issues, lies, or the ability to run fast myself.

You did ask the question.

"Why do you find black holes inconvenient? Pray tell, what is wrong with general relativity, which treats charged black holes very nicely thankyou (see Kerr-Newman metric)? nummycakes".Read and make up your own mind. I do not care what you choose as long as you are honest in your investigation and check out the sources to see if they are real. The rest is up to you.

This is classic dissembling. If you come into a discussion board with a broad thesis about black holes, then it is incumbent on *you* to provide more than general advice along the lines of "read and make up your own mind" or a random link or two without any context. Obviously you have some strong ideas about the issue - it would do you credit to at least articulate what these are and the basis for your rejection of a fundamental aspect of modern physics.

I mean no disrespect and I have intended no tone which is disrepectful.

I didn't read you as intending any; but if you want to put forth an alternative, it is well to explain how it solves problems encountered in the current direction of the field while raising fewer itself.

For instance, a major issue with large-scale electric force domination is that when the charges attract each other closer, they'll neutralize each other as far as other charges at larger distances are concerned instead of adding as gravitational charge (i.e. mass) does. A major issue with using magnetic forces instead of the gravity of dark matter causing the observed rotation curves of galaxies is that you'd need negative charges going one way around the galaxy and positive charges running the other way, which again would have the running into each other and neutralizing issue.

Quote:

In the matter of Anthony L Peratt a basic primer on the subject I mentioned can be located here.

That's interesting, thanks. It would be my interpretation that this would predict fewer redder, older stars between spiral arms than Lin-Shu density wave theory, do you know if this is correct? Further work would be to see how colliding galaxies can be expected to interact in this model and see how that compares to observations.

Matt Ford / Matt is a contributing writer at Ars Technica, focusing on physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, and engineering. When he's not writing, he works on realtime models of large-scale engineering systems.